Quote (excellence @ Apr 8 2021 06:00pm)

yes you used to torture mice for free now the govt subsidizes it

again write a check if you want to help

Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 8 2021 05:57pm)

I volunteered for years at a free clinic lol

Quote (Faggle @ Apr 8 2021 07:21pm)

seems like handing out tunafish sandwiches with rat poison in them would be cheaper

Quote (duffman316 @ Apr 8 2021 06:22pm)

My god man

What if a dog eats one?

Quote (duffman316 @ 8 Apr 2021 15:40)

Not exclusively but from a reliability standpoint i do see the government stepping in as the only viable long term solution. If individuals were going to solve this voluntarily jeff bezos could have waved a wand and had a facility for the homeless erected instead of sending phallic objects into space.

Did a quick google search and ill be damned, he is opening up a homeless shelter 🤔

Quote (duffman316 @ 8 Apr 2021 16:22)

My god man

What if a dog eats one?

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Apr 9 2021 08:16am)

Mixed mind. I agree with Thor, but also agree with thundercock.

I tend to think some form of "camp ground" setup that's not "pay to enter" but instead designed to cater to the homeless, with all the outhouses and running water and firepits and other such that are seen in "tourist" places would be relatively cheap and easy to set up and maintain, and would help the homeless to at least live with a bit of dignity and basic services, as opposed to tents on highway medians, and also provide a place where social workers, those seeking cheap labor, etc. could go to do some good deeds and maybe help lift some of them out of poverty.

On the flipside, we don't need people shitting in medians and pissing into traffic. I agree that the "cost" of the "median spike" is next to nothing, and would be a drop in the bucket compared to what really addressing homelessness would require. So I support both: Get them out of the medians, underpasses, etc. But provide an alternative that's still going to be close enough to basics like food and water that they can continue to survive. :)

Quote (IgoSoHard @ Apr 8 2021 06:10pm)

Quote (duffman316 @ Apr 8 2021 03:15pm)

Are you in support of robust social safety nets (housing/food/electricity) subsidized by tax dollars (theft)?

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Apr 8 2021 07:25pm)

The primary concern with opening a homeless shelter is they tend to cater only to children and women. It's not useful to a homeless couple to be split up. He gets to freeze while she risks assault, robbery, or worse around strangers?

The advantage of something like a campground scenario with the attached willing charity sources for food, clothing, and tents/sleeping bags, etc. is that the population will usually be willing to chip in. As a point in fact, "tent cities" do exist and have a greater success rate at keeping homeless people fed and healthy, and drawing at least some portion of them back into society via social workers and employers reaching out. And when they're centralized, somebody like Bezos can fund a charity clinic to provide free healthcare. And the only real cost to the government is the city water they provide to parks anyway, the maintenance of the outhouse/bathrooms they maintain at parks anyway, and a few bike cops around the area just to insure things don't get super spicy.



:o